5 The Futures Literacy Laboratory- Novelty (FLL-N) case studies
Edited by Stefan Bergheim
Case 1: Cultural heritage research and the future Martin Rhisiart
Efforts to recognise and preserve cultural heritage, in all its forms, are fundamentally linked to views of the past, present and future. As a result, the anticipatory assump- tions that form the foundation for imagining the future play a determinant role in understanding what cultural heritage is, which aspects are deemed worth preserv- ing and how to attempt to assure durability or continuity. In keeping with the general design principles for Futures Literacy Laboratories (FLL) and the specific targets of the Future Literacy Laboratory-Novel (FLL-N), as detailed in Chapter 4, the co-creation of the process for this customised lab needed to take into account the specific nature of the link between anticipation and cultural heritage.
This led to a re-articulation of the topic to ensure that both the identifica- tion of cultural heritage and its temporal dimensions were amenable to being understood from an anticipatory perspective. This specification of the topic, the approach to reframing and the type of questions all facilitated the surfacing of intra- and extra-systemic anticipatory assumptions. This, in turn, allowed participants to sense and make-sense of distinct strategic perspectives and ensu- ing implications for their research agenda. Senior researchers participating in this FLL, according to feedback collected during and after the event, found the process was exceptionally effective at revealing both key assumptions and new directions that might shape the selection of strategic research priorities in the field of cultural heritage preservation. The design lessons from this case study provide insights into how FLL can assist researchers working in a highly technical and specific field to both better understand and invent items for their strategic agenda.
This FLL-N was organised as part of a larger project sponsored by the European Commission’s Joint Programming Initiative on Cultural Heritage and Global Change: a New Challenge for Europe. The goal of the overall project was to develop a Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) for the field of cultural heritage, with a horizon of 10–20 years. Futures methods were widely used throughout the project (Miller, 2007a), including the FLL-N described below as a case study in using the future. Two other approaches for thinking about the future were also
used: a drivers meta-analysis covering scientific and grey literature; and a real- time Delphi Study that explored the views of cultural heritage experts on drivers and potential changes in the field/impacting on the field.
The aim of the FLL-N was to push the boundaries of conventional thinking, with the hope of revealing and inventing innovative strategic policy choices in the area of cultural heritage research. The FLL-N methodology was chosen on the grounds that it was designed to go beyond the parameters of traditional futures exercises – to explore novelty as defined by the Futures Literacy Framework (FLF) presented in Chapter 1. A collaborative design process was undertaken, following the general design principles for FLL and specifically for a FLL-N as outlined in Chapter 4. By the end of the design phase it was clear that the aim of this FLL-N was to mobilise the collective intelligence of a group of cultural herit- age research experts to push the boundaries of strategic thinking about their field, paying particular attention to the challenges facing Europe.
This case study summarises the three-phase FLL-N process followed by partic- ipants and concludes with overall comments on how an enhanced understanding of the potential of the present that surfaced in the discussions reveals strategic issues and choices for cultural heritage research. The richness and subtlety of the discussions that occur during an action-learning collective intelligence knowl- edge creation process, like the FLL-N, makes it challenging to fully record and describe what occurred. The following summary offers highlights of the con- versations that took place during this FLL-N with an emphasis on the research priorities of the UNESCO FL Project and the goals of this specific exercise on the future of cultural heritage research.
Participants were selected on the basis of their contributions to the Scientific Committee of the Joint Programming Initiative and represented interests across the field of cultural heritage research. Most of the 17 participants were well established and senior researchers, with affiliations to national and international scientific communities. The participants were drawn from ten European Union countries.
Workshop programme and methodology
The FLL-N methodology was used to co-design and facilitate a two-day lab in November 2012, with a strong emphasis on the FLL-N action-learning/research approach. The participants were divided into two groups and worked through the three FLL-N phases, with plenary feedback and discussion after each level.
The group work was facilitated by Dr Martin Rhisiart and Mr Meirion Thomas.
The plenary sessions were facilitated by Dr Riel Miller. A customised FLL work- book was distributed to participants that included materials intended to encourage a more open and creative discussion. In particular, there were some initial thoughts on re-defining the meaning of the key term preservation within cultural heritage research. Questioning such a basic concept was meant to provoke reflection on how contemporary societies engage with the continuous processes of cultural re- production, including through digital means.
Phase 1: The future of cultural heritage research: values and expectations Participants spent approximately one and a half hours discussing their values and expectations for cultural heritage research in 2032. The two breakout groups were asked to discuss their views regarding the probable future of cultural heritage research in 2032. As per the standard FLL design, the main objective in Phase 1 of the process is to identify expectations (what people think will probably happen), and hopes and preferences (what they would like to see happen by 2032). One of a number of aspects customised for this FLL-N, in light of the participants’ high level of technical knowledge, was to start the group work with an initial invita- tion to question some of the basic terms used to discuss cultural heritage research.
The first question for group discussion was: what is research? In response to the question, participants stated that knowledge creation in society is chang- ing, and that the validity and role of the research process will be different. The enquiry process or practice of research is changing and in some cases, the valid- ity of research is also changing. One other important perspective raised was the difference between science and research. It was noted that in several countries, the focus is primarily on natural and not social sciences and humanities. This leads to a lack of integration; the arts need to be tied to science to get recognition and funding.
DEFINITIONS
Group 1: Cultural heritage can be many different things – including memory, skills, materials, and technologies. It is about ‘dealing with old stuff’ – evoking the passage of time between past and present.
Group 2: Cultural heritage institutions have several roles: to collect; to research;
to preserve; to disseminate. It was emphasised that ‘what is not functional is lost’;
part of the role is to give function to the artefact.
EXPECTATIONS FOR 2032
Group 1: Cultural heritage research will be more interdisciplinary but practice will remain ahead of structures and institutions. This will cause a continued lag in support for interdisciplinary funding.
Europe will be more multicultural: a challenge for cultural heritage research is to better reflect that diversity and what it means for individuals. Cultural heritage research will have a positive role as a bridge between diversity and social identi- ties. Relevance will be a critical challenge: cultural heritage research needs to reflect diversity or there will be declines in funding and in relevance. It is unclear whether problems of funding cycles will be overcome; this will depend on pro- gress in educating decision-makers. The economic situation further undermines prospects for continuity of funding.
Group 2: The task of cultural heritage curators will be to decide what stays and what goes. However, the role will be redefined – to make intelligent linkages (maybe digital more than physical). The paradigmatic shifts ensuing from glo- balisation (e.g. China; Islam) will force reinterpretation of cultural heritage. There will be an open science of cultural heritage research, with greater participation from citizens and consumers; cultural heritage research will be more integrated into society.
PREFERRED 2032 FOR CULTURAL HERITAGE RESEARCH
Group 1: There will be recognition of the need for funding, and increased recog- nition, awareness and interest from the public. Cultural heritage research should be closer to the people; it should be more decentralised and networked. Cultural heritage research has the capacity to empower individuals to participate in cultural heritage; education and awareness across society will be central to this vision.
This preferred vision brings the public into the process, partially because it will be a necessity since professional resources (e.g. conservation) will not be sufficient.
The boundary between the digital and the physical in cultural heritage research will disappear. Cultural heritage research should become a continuous act of crea- tion as opposed to a static stand-alone effort at preservation. Careers in cultural heritage research should become more entrepreneurial – embracing a portfolio approach that combines periods in the private, public and philanthropic sectors.
Group 2: In the preferred future cultural heritage research will be depoliticised and unifying. It will not be driven by political correctness but rather by academic freedom. Funding for cultural heritage research will be evaluated more effec- tively. It will be valued more generally socially and economically. There will be less ‘Tivolisation’ – less akin to a theme park attraction. Cultural heritage research should be recognised as a discipline.
PRESENTATIONS OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN FORESIGHT AND FL
Following Phase 1 group work and plenary presentations, participants were pro- vided with an overview of recent developments in the field of foresight, its role in national research prioritisation and in addressing grand challenges in the European Union. They were then introduced to the idea of FL in general and the Learning Intensive Society reframing tool that they would use in Phase 2 of the FLL-N.
Phase 2: Reframing cultural heritage research
Using the Learning Intensive Society (LIS) as a model for imagining cultural heritage research in 2032, the groups were challenged to describe their work under a different set of framework conditions – social, economic and cultural.
Participants had approximately three hours during the afternoon of the first day
and the morning of the second day to complete Phase 2. The objective of the Phase 2 discussions was to produce a 2032 scenario for cultural heritage research.
In accordance with the typical FLL-N design their task was to provide a snapshot of how the knowledge production and scientific enquiry process functioned under an alternative set of boundaries and conditions.
From the perspective of design and facilitation, participants were asked to consider the economic, social and cultural dimensions of this transition. What could be the new nature, purpose and direction of research? How could this move beyond Mode 1 and Mode 2 research (Gibbons et al., 1994)? This might move towards an open, distributed research and knowledge production system. What might be the implications of a shift from private ownership to collective avail- ability for institutions and infrastructure? How could cultural heritage research become a more dynamic field, where there is real-time reflexivity and interpreta- tion? What do culture, heritage and preservation mean in a LIS 2032 world?
The following brief scenario summaries convey some of the main aspects of cultural heritage research in 2032 as imagined by the groups. Although the groups followed a common facilitation process, the outputs reflect the dynamics of each group. It is interesting that the two scenarios are different, although both share common elements.
GROUP 1: ATHENA SCENARIO
Athena is our friend – 30 years old – with a lot of skills and ambition. She is a practitioner, a craftsperson and an aspiring researcher. She would like to get into more research – in a LIS, the main value is exchange of knowledge as part of the social fabric. Cultural heritage is an important feature in her society where old and new are both valued. The old brings accumulation of knowledge and experience and can inform new knowledge so cultural heritage is a representation of knowl- edge. Athena is a questioner and is looking for new horizons. Craft knowledge and high-end research are equally valued and allow for different and varied career development opportunities.
Government is the guarantor of knowledge and institutions, and the abil- ity to acquire and develop knowledge, including high level knowledge through universities. But Athena is not sure that she wants to be in this realm. Athena asks questions and becomes part of the team as a researcher; however, she is not embedded within institutions. Society allows her to do both pure and applied research – knowledge is the prime value creator and people are valued by their portfolio of knowledge. People can pick and choose. Education is a mix of science and the arts to develop a palette of skills; practice is open to research and research is open to practice.
Shared value is mediated through collective appreciation of the worth of knowledge. When people retire, their knowledge is not dispersed; they can still bring their knowledge into the economy and society. Society supports Athena to learn and practise; she will be supported if and when she has children. Society val- ues her knowledge and skills and will support her to fulfil her learning ambitions.
Cultural heritage research is more fluid – Athena can enter the field at various
stages as suits her circumstances and ambitions. Open access to knowledge and national institutions will act as mediators of that knowledge.
GROUP 2: CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN EUROPE EVENT SCENARIO
We are a researcher in a digital hub centre focusing on 2012 heritage and we are organising an exhibition/conference ‘Cultural Diversity in Europe’. The context for the event is that cultural rights are enacted and ‘work’ well; there is a strong focus in cultural research on global connections among cultural groups, and the drive in cultural heritage research is to find unifying concepts. For the conference, machine translation is a key tool to allow Chinese etc. translation. This is a vir- tual exhibition based around digital technologies challenging the virtual realities for cultural heritage and research – what is the role of the original? The event is strongly participatory – participants use ambient computing that enables them to see, feel, smell and experience the exhibits.
Knowledge is a commodity of value so in the world of 2032 cultural heritage research is a generalised activity: ‘Everyone is a researcher now’. People do their own research and produce learning intensive products. Virtual experiences and participatory cultural heritage research mean that paradoxically, there is enhanced meaning and value assigned to original artefacts. There is an increased role for validation and reference points – cultural heritage institutions that curate – and for cultural heritage institutions as intermediaries between knowledge and pri- vate funders. Institutions are strongly educational, entertainment-focused and demonstrative – enabling touching, feeling and experiencing.
Phase 3: Rethinking cultural heritage research
In the Level 3 discussions, the groups reassessed anticipatory assumptions sur- faced in Phases 1 and 2. In particular, the group work was guided by the following question: What are the anticipatory assumptions around cultural heritage research – and the social, economic, cultural conditions that frame them? Participants had approximately two hours to do Phase 3.
GROUP 1
How cultural heritage is valued more broadly
In the current situation, there is an assumption that cultural heritage is valued in policy because there may be an economic value – cultural enterprise, crea- tive industries, etc. There is a separation of researchers and users/consumers and producer; they are independent of one another. Much but not all ‘engagement’ is on the basis of dissemination of results once research has been completed, that is, post-hoc engagement.
Empowerment and democratisation
How can cultural heritage research support empowerment? One dimen- sion where people feel more comfortable is intra-systemic empowerment, where
constraints are removed within the research community to enable cross disciplinary working. This is a process of collaboration and reform.
How can cultural heritage research support empowerment on a social level?
What would this really mean? It seems that there are two dimensions. The first is the removal of constraints – the permission to act. The second is ownership of the creating process.
How can cultural heritage research support and anticipate policy discus- sions? How can cultural heritage research be ahead of the game in respect of economic instrumentality?
Creating new structures and infrastructure – there could be better, shared ownership of infrastructure across institutions, which would also facilitate cross- disciplinary working.
Intrinsic role and value of cultural heritage in society
In order to realise the potential of cultural heritage at a societal level, a lot of progress needs to be made in – and through – education. A more holistic and personalised approach to education would help to remove false choices between sciences and arts.
GROUP 2
Cultural heritage matters to society at large – this is the fundamental and underlying assumption. Increasing participation beyond passive forms of ‘con- sumption’ is good.
Everyone is a researcher now – how developed is that? How much of that is already apparent in programmes and activities now? There are some good signs in the present, e.g. programmes have requirements for dissemination plans and for digital distribution of outputs.
Knowledge is a commodity with value – this has implications for evaluation and funding of research in cultural heritage. Evaluation of knowledge and artefacts needs to improve. Evaluation of research outputs and decisions on research fund- ing need to be on ‘net new content’ – new, original and valuable content – rather than simply looking at citations.
Important role of technology – digital technologies and access, but materiality also matters, alongside the digital and the intangible.
Cultural heritage research helps integration of communities and societies – enables further understanding and is a unifying factor. A precondition to this is the first assumption – that cultural heritage is valued by society at large.
Producers/consumers drive cultural heritage research – society establishes key strategies for cultural heritage – undertaken from a broad political and cultural context, but also responds to problems such as natural environment. Consumers also become producers; everybody becomes a researcher, and increasingly they will drive cultural heritage research.
Conclusions
In concluding the workshop – particularly drawing on the points made during the third phase of the process – the final plenary session focused on insights and implications for strategic policy choices for cultural heritage research. This part of the workshop lasted approximately one hour. Four key considerations for devel- oping a strategic research agenda emerged.
Empowerment – how can cultural heritage research support empowerment and democratisation within society? There are two distinct dimensions to the social empowerment question from a cultural heritage research/practice perspective.
The first is giving people permission to act by removing constraints, e.g. allowing people to access artefacts/conservation. The second is enabling ownership in the research process.
Co-creation – how can policy be designed in a way that genuinely uses the knowl- edge and capacity distributed in society? This is a large question for research policy more broadly, and one in which cultural heritage research may be able to lead the way. Engagement in this sense is not disseminating the results of closed research processes after they have finished but rather co-creating research and knowledge through a distributed and participatory model of enquiry and practice.
Importance of values – the crucial role of values in cultural heritage research was recognised. First, cultural heritage research should be reflective of values in society. Second, values should be explicitly addressed in judgements on what is worth preserving/how to make the choice of what is preserving. Without societal recognition and valuing of cultural heritage, discussions on options for cultural heritage research will be largely futile. Cultural heritage research needs to address the intrinsic value of cultural heritage in society generally – touching on issues of continuity, discontinuity and identity.
Valuing knowledge and the allocation of resources – new methods of evaluat- ing research are needed, which will serve as the basis of allocating resources.
Evaluation of research outputs and decisions on research funding need to be done on the basis of producing net new content/knowledge rather than simply looking at citations.
As outlined in the introductory section to this case study, this FLL-N was part of a Joint Programming Initiative (JPI) to support the development of a Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) for Cultural Heritage Research in Europe. The results
of the FLL-N and the other elements of the Foresight study (Joint Programming Initiative (JPI) on Cultural Heritage, 2013), directly informed the shape and con- tent of the SRA report, published in June 2014 (JPI on Cultural Heritage and Global Change, 2014). The SRA highlights the four strategic considerations for cultural heritage research policy that flowed directly from the FL workshop:
empowerment; co-creation; the importance of values; and valuing knowledge and the allocation of resources. In this case, one objective for the FLL-N – to elicit fresh policy-oriented thinking and options – was realised through the sub- sequent work of the SRA. This is due in large part to the collective endeavour and commitment of the participating institutions. One of the interesting results of the workshop is the shaping of institutional goals and the allocation of resources towards cultural heritage research in the years to come.
The realisation of the FLL-N on Cultural Heritage Research was partially funded by a Coordination and Support Action from the European Commission (JHEP CSA - Contract number 277606) and the contributions, in kind, by UNESCO.
References
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M.
(1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.
Joint Programming Initiative (JPI) on Cultural Heritage (2013) Foresight Study and Technological Capability Report: Futures Literacy Scenarios Workshop – The Future of Cultural Heritage Research. Available at: http://www.jpi-culturalherit age.eu/wp-content/uploads/JHEP_D2.4_Part3.pdf (Accessed: 30 August 2017).
JPI on Cultural Heritage and Global Change (2014) Strategic Research Agenda. Rome: JPI Cultural Heritage.
Miller, R. (2007a) ‘Futures Literacy: A Hybrid Strategic Scenario Method’, Futures, 39(4), pp. 341–362.
Case 2: The future of science in society Cristiano Cagnin and Lydia Garrido Luzardo
What is science? What is knowledge creation? There are many answers. The aim of this Futures Literacy Lab-Novelty (FLL-N) on the future of science and society was not to debate definitions but to find starting points for collaborative explora- tion of how our ideas about the future influence our understanding of the present.
The working definition, proposed to serve as a basis for starting conversations, was science as a set of specific methods and relationships that enable humans to continuously negotiate their understanding of the world around them (see for example, Understanding Science 2017; Anon 2017a, Anon 2017b). Sense making and making sense is a key pillar of knowledge creation that encompasses a learn- ing process, both internal and external, which produces knowing in all its forms.
The way the future is used in science defines which science and its place in society.
Hence, we need to dig into the assumptions embedded in knowledge creation and in our capacity to invent novelty.
This also relates to decision making. Making decisions to embrace complexity and treating uncertainty as a resource for exploration of new possibilities calls for a significantly enhanced comprehension to use the future to understand the present. Building this greater capacity rests on bringing anticipation out into the open as the way the future exists in the present. Doing so makes clear that con- scious human search and choice deploy a range of different anticipatory systems to invent and apply the future to practical decision making. An applied anticipa- tory systems approach to using the future provides policy and decision makers as well as individuals with an enhanced capacity to both question and invent the anticipatory assumptions that inform their choices.
The above is in line with the Centre for Strategic Studies and Management’s (CGEE) mission to promote Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) to advance economic growth, competitiveness and wellbeing in Brazil. It does so by carrying out foresight and strategic evaluation studies in combination with information and knowledge management approaches and systems. At the core of its activities is its position and ability to articulate and coordinate diverse actors within the Brazilian National Innovation System (NIS). One of the CGEE’s institutional objectives linked to its mission is to lead foresight studies that generate anticipatory intelligence for both the Brazilian NIS and the STI Ministry and its agencies.
During the past five years, CGEE has been changing its approach to develop- ing and addressing new strategic questions and in recognising new issues which deserve further investigation via systemic and systematic observations and dia- logue. It is doing so to evolve its foresight practice to combine generations one to five of foresight development (Georghiou, 2001, 2007; Johnston, 2002, 2007;
Cuhls, 2003) as well as foresight modes 1 (Eriksson and Weber, 2006; Havas, Schartinger and Weber, 2007) and 2 (Da Costa et al., 2008), and to enable its results to be better positioned to support reorienting the Brazilian NIS. The aim is to move from a normative and prescriptive approach to one that embraces complexity, emergence and novelty. Such a move is being sought by foster- ing an improvement in CGEE’s capability to use systematic approaches and to develop recommendations for policy design and implementation based on shared insights and perceptions as well as evidence. Several tools and approaches are being explored to enable CGEE to advance in this direction and to use the future to inspire and expand collective imagination and understanding of the present.
Ultimately, the aim of foresight at CGEE is to balance contextualised design with systemic and systematic qualitative and quantitative approaches, and to welcome unknowability and uncertainty as sources of novelty, thus also providing an invi- tation to creativity and improvisation.
In this context, this specific FLL-N was designed to assist the participants to collectively identify and invent new anticipatory assumptions. Anticipatory assumptions cover a range of different elements that enable conscious thought to allow us to imagine the future and make choices in the present. Our conversation
in the FLL was contextually specific, not only because we were a distinctive group of people, meeting in a particular place and at given moment in time, but also because from a wide range of perspectives, the idea and practice of science was evolving.
Movement towards new forms and relationships of knowledge creation, span- ning efforts to redesign societal innovation systems and embrace unknowability are altering, reconfiguring and inventing new ways of thinking and doing sci- ence. This all points towards the importance of opening up what we imagine to be the future of science as one of the ways to assist with a fuller appreciation of the potential of the present. The workshop was carefully designed to achieve this objective.
During the workshop, participants went through a FLL-N process. This experi- ence enabled them to more fully explore the potential of the present and thereby advance their capacity to make strategic decisions in contexts of ambiguity. This ensured that diversity and complexity could serve as sources of inspiration; a way to embrace the dazzling heterogeneity of the world as well as to respect the crea- tive spontaneity of freedom and serendipity.
The workshop: imagine the future of science in society
The Future of Science in Society workshop, co-organised by CGEE and what was then called the UNESCO Foresight Unit, took place as a satellite event of the World Science Forum in Rio de Janeiro on 28 and 29 November 2013. The workshop had three primary goals: (1) guide participants through a learning-by- doing process that challenged the implicit and explicit anticipatory assumptions they use to think about the future; (2) test and refine the Futures Literacy meth- odology being globally shaped through the UNESCO project ‘Networking to Improve Global/Local Anticipatory Capacities – A Scoping Exercise’; and (3) support CGEE in changing its approach to developing and addressing new strategic questions, recognising new issues that merit further investigation via systemic and systematic observations and dialogue, and transforming its way of designing, organising, implementing, managing and evaluating its foresight and strategic studies.
Participants in this FLL-N workshop included representatives from govern- ment, industry, academy and youth. They were selected to represent a wide range of viewpoints in their understanding of science and its roles in society. Overall, the 25 participants varied in age from 20 to 60+ years old and represented a num- ber of different organisations, including: CGEE, UNESCO, UNIDO, Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, University of North Carolina, Academy of Sciences of both Hungary and Cuba, Max Planck Institute, Embraer, Petrobras, Vale, Association of Professional Futurists, Millennium Project, Getúlio Vargas Foundation, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, Institute of Pure and Applied Mathematics, Faculdade Latino- Americana de Ciências Sociais, Secretariat of Strategic Matters of the Brazilian Presidency, and Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation.
Participants were divided into four working groups, each with a facilitator and an observer whose role was to back up the facilitator, support the organisation of group discussions into Post-its and/or flip charts and to take notes on the process and its main results. Despite having similar guidelines on how to operate in each of the three main workshop phases, working groups had the freedom and flex- ibility to adapt group dynamics, since the idea was to experiment with different moderation approaches and test what might work best for each context. Each phase took roughly two and a half hours plus an hour for reporting back in plenary sessions and discussions.
Phase 1: Reveal
The exercise started by asking participants to think about their predictions about and hopes for the different roles of science in society. The main objective was to build temporal and situational awareness. Self-awareness is related to experience.
For pedagogical purposes, the design placed these experiences in a frame through shifting both expectations/predictions and values/hopes from tacit to explicit.
This took place via a facilitated group discussion about the future of science in society in 2040.
Generally, participants’ main assumptions centred on the relationship of sci- ence to technological development. Within this science-technology nexus they tended to focus on how, in the future, science-technology would resolve a vast range of existing challenges and problems and enable knowledge sharing that empowered individuals and societies. In this phase, the work and results were quite conventional. They did not find it too surprising, thrilling, or shocking.
Their imaginations were engaged and they built well on each other’s ideas, hav- ing fun, learning together, showing respect, and playing along.
During the exercise, many participants found that some anticipated changes had both positive and negative aspects. For instance, more open access to data might produce innovations and new security and privacy risks. Participants were chal- lenged by the facilitator to think beyond an extrapolation of ‘business as usual’, noting concerns with progress and growth paradigms, which made them build more negative outcomes and contingencies but not radically different scenarios.
They looked backward and agreed that the future is not the present anymore, but remained anchored in present experiences and ways of framing them.
In the second segment on desired futures (hopes and dreams for 2040), many participants took the positives from their expectations and built on them, which they called ‘new frontiers’ for science. Education, health, environment and tech- nological breakthroughs would open new opportunities. In terms of risks such as the military and cyber-security, they explored solutions and contingencies for overcoming possible problems.
Even though participants were well versed in cutting-edge topics like trans- humanism, the singularity, environmental issues and other technological futures, the discussion did not stray far from what they already saw as likely outcomes. This kind of extrapolation changed substantially by the time the process reached Phase 3.
The main outcomes of Phase 1 for all four groups were similar in terms of overall assumptions regarding participants’ expectations and desires related to the future roles of science in society. Outcomes were summarised as follows.
Science as technology fix – the main attributes being:
• biotechnology and information and communication technologies are perva- sive across all realms of society;
• clean energy (e.g. nuclear fusion) becomes more affordable to all as it does for health systems (cancer solved; nanotechnology, genetic and bionic medicine, etc.), water and all other means necessary for societies’ quality of life;
• science can address all global challenges (the reach of a sustainable world with the Millennium Goals achieved and businesses competing for remaining garbage) and to bring about greater social justice, as well as to enable global peace and quality of life through new innovations (STI breakthroughs), knowledge at new frontiers and unknown technologies;
• STI controlling nature leading to a bridge between machines, humans and nature;
• extension of human life through reengineering of cells and genetic enhancements;
• first child born in space and ability to travel to neighbouring galaxies; and
• more productivity, efficiency and access to services.
Science/knowledge empowering individuals and societies – the main attributes being:
• integration between science and society leads to empowerment of citizens and greater democracy;
• science becomes international, transdisciplinary and collaborative and is embedded early in education with equal access and opportunities for all;
• science serving and responding to social needs as well as an input to policy and decision making – policy informed by scientific evidence with political systems accountable to scientific decisions and public judgement/outreach;
• gender equality and balance as well as recognition making scientific careers of greater interest (considering youth needs and expectations) and leveraging overall investments in research (the EU applies 5 per cent of GDP on R&D investments);
• citizens become more informed making better decisions individually and collectively (thinking globally, acting locally); all citizens are scientifically literate;
• the scientific method is pervasive for individuals in their daily life and at all educational levels, bringing about a new kind of spirituality, with new values and ethics (e.g. no more science for war), as well as leading to both admira- tion and fear of science and its achievements;
• human and social values become means of exchange, and diversity becomes the main driver for innovation;
• borderless world governance and increased communication, with fewer cor- porations and more networks globally leading to open and free access to and sharing of knowledge;
• conflict between marketing and government as regulators, driving scientific developments – either way there are risks of manipulation to overcome due to hidden agendas;
• conflict between indigenous and scientific knowledge and cyberterrorism remain unresolved; and
• ‘Big Brother’ as STI controls data and information of all individuals.
Phase 2: Reframe
Phase 2, in keeping with the standard FLL-N design, calls for a reframing exercise that uses ‘rigorous imagining’ in order to take on two distinct challenges:
inspiring participants to imagine anticipatory assumptions that are outside the boun- daries of their existing frameworks and deploying a systematic creative procedure that generates awareness of anticipatory assumptions. To meet these challenges participants engage with a disruptive tool that invites them to articulate detailed descriptions of a reframed imaginary future society. Participants were provided with an adapted reframing model – a version of the Learning Intensive Society discussed in Chapter 4 – that they could use as inspiration for describing a dis- ruptive or systemically discontinuous imaginary future. The Learning Intensive Society is a societal model that embraces novel, emergent complexity and treats uncertainty as a resource not a threat. This model was designed without reference to probability or desirability. There was no suggestion that this alternative future is likely to happen or is even desirable; the point was to experience the power of our anticipatory assumptions in shaping the futures we imagine, and the potential to address the creative challenge of inventing paradigmatically different futures.
Participants engaged in a rigorous imagining process that enabled the develop- ment of systemically discontinuous but operationally detailed descriptions of organisations/functions.
The point of the reframing model is to give participants a few descriptive vari- ables and functional relationships that depart from existing dominant societal attributes and organisational forms. The model is designed to equip participants with new or unfamiliar elements for describing the future and provides inspiration for creative thinking about the nature, role and organisation of knowledge produc- tion in general and scientific activities. The main assumptions of this alternative future world are that the conditions for fluid communication, rapid sense-making, spontaneous innovation and unique creation make organisational and governance systems more open, diverse and dynamic, thus open for renewal, birth and death.
Groups moved differently through the process. One group determined col- lectively that a new reputation process could replace some current institutional barriers, eventually working beyond objections from entrenched systems. They likened it to a clearly defined, open-edge network. Networks were seen more like mountain peaks and valleys with concentrations of high activity across an otherwise flat landscape. Exploring this potential, they soon had a Facebook-like network
for science where access and players were continually evolving, reputations based on peer-acknowledged contributions, and co-creating innovations. Participants imagined a new work/life relationship described as ‘productive leisure’. While they would perhaps enjoy more free time, they would never be completely away from work due to mobile interconnectivity. Under the rubric of uncertainties, data would be open to all for both access and input, thus potentially subject to malicious meddling. Ethics would be impossible to manage due to different sensibilities and a lack of responsibility among amateurs: ‘not everybody is good’ was a comment from one scientist inferring that ethics could be difficult to control in an open shared new system. In what the group defined as a ‘new frontier’ scenario, qual- ifications and resources faced unknown pressures and needed new systems for continuous sorting. New avenues and new players would be constants, which is, in effect, saying that change is constant. Finally, the metaphor ‘open Olympics in science’ explains the scenario where it would be possible to identify outstanding persons at an early age and/or in isolated places.
A second group decided to re-think some of the dimensions and descriptions of variables of the Learning Intensive Society model. Their scenario model was called ‘Creative Society, Science and Arts – Bridging the Gap: Scientific Culture, Artistic Culture’. It included the following aspects: activities organised for life;
flexible networks; interchange of knowledge; zero material differences; open clusters; cooperative work; cognitive capability identity; no money but human values; and no corporations. Science is associated with spirituality and educa- tion: Spirituality, Education and Science. Social dynamism was based on freedom and the capacity of ethical responsibility, transactional exchange-relations was flexible, new universal rights for living and non-living beings (human, animal, plants, post-human); there is no need for gender issues. In terms of governance dynamism, some of the highlights were: individual values based on social con- tribution; culture of individual and collective rights; no state, only alliances; and open data for government participation.
In another group, participants engaged in a very energetic discussion about the specificities of the Learning Intensive Society model. They started think- ing about systemic reforms for achieving better science within the model’s framework, including specific, rigorous proposals for building less formal, more project-oriented, international teams composed of individual researchers and sponsors of research, thanks to technology-enhanced networks of research cooperation. One particularly interesting feature of this proposition was to move from using universities and institutes as brokers to facilitating ad hoc networks of scientists and financing institutions. Still, threats for the scien- tific community in terms of maintaining their prestige and social status were highlighted, and a certain sense of ambiguity about educational priorities to be redefined in the future indicated hesitation about the changes from the status quo that would stem from a potential future expansion of a Learning Intensive Society in the real world. One person also noted that the Learning Intensive Society was, at least to a certain extent, and in given aspects of the model, already in place. The metaphor chosen by the group however, one of ‘crossing
the mirror and following the white rabbit’, clearly indicated the exploratory conscience of the group in the reframing phase.
In yet another group, all participants were excited to either contribute to the Learning Intensive Society or to go against it by anchoring their ideas in how they were seeing the present. Their scenario included the following aspects: humans would be able to connect to their inner voice and to nature; there would be no expectations about what needs to be done as reality unfolds with no need for control; and everything would be interconnected, so what materialises would be exactly what would be needed at each particular moment in time. Physical spaces would be designed for multiple purposes and uses, and communications would happen ‘on the go’ via telepathy or an avatar. Technology would be pervasive and embedded, interconnecting everything (i.e. ambient intelligence). There would be no need for life in biological terms as there would be many forms of being alive with no waste of energy in connecting people and things. A repository of thoughts and emotions in a sort of cloud connected to everything would allow people to refrain from storing ‘facts’ as all knowledge would be automatically accessible to anyone at any time. Individuals would be able to live-the-present since there would exist no attachment to past or future. Everyone would be immortal since mind, thoughts and emotions would somehow survive forever in the cloud. Hence, a physical or material space as well as body would not be a constraint. Systems would be flexible, self-organising and self-governing with no central control or organisation according to the needs of the moment. Physical systems would manifest as other systems self-organise and everything is embedded with intel- ligence. The human body would exist for leisure, experimentation and dreaming;
dreams which would be automatically prototyped in personal printers and then produced as a customised unique creation for everyone. In this context, identity would be defined both by history and interactions with one another, and with the environment in the present. Good or bad would cease to exist as experimentation and interactions become the only important activity. Ethics would be embedded in everyone since we would only exist in interaction with the system and others, which brings to the fore mutual respect, trust and appreciation. Wealth would be measured by creativity in interaction, which would lead to unique creation.
Overall assumptions identified in Phase 2 can be summarised as follows.
Networked life and science with embedded technology:
• spontaneous innovation is co-created in interaction with others and unique creation is linked to individual customisation of any product stemming auto- matically from individuals’ dreams;
• productive leisure linked to continual work, experimentation and dreams that become physical reality at any given moment and are designed for multiple purposes and needs;
• seamless communication with no waste of energy and with knowledge auto- matically accessible to anyone at any time;
• life beyond biology for repository of minds, thoughts and emotions.
Self-organised and self-governing systems – the main attributes being:
• change is constant, life and science are complex, and systems are flexible, able to self-organise and self-govern according to needs of the moment;
• ethics embedded in every interaction, bringing to the fore mutual respect, trust and appreciation, and leading to peer-acknowledged contributions and reputation.
Phase 3: Rethink
Phase 3 is the natural conclusion of the process. The aim was to allow participants to appropriate for themselves key ideas from the overall experience and learning process.
Generally, groups departed from either an operational problem in the present to understand the ways in which this would be operationalised in their devel- oped scenarios, or from a few questions which became relevant only after going through Phases 1 and 2, and that had to be analysed in the scenarios. The two previous phases were steps in the process rather than outcomes. In Phase 3 we searched for a shift in participants’ understanding of their use of the future.
Participants identified new questions, especially those which might have been considered unimportant or incomprehensible without going through the process.
These included questions around the role and identity of scientists, their way of working and their beliefs, the ways in which science is performed, evaluated and communicated, the ways in which science and constant learning/education can become ambient and evolve towards capacity-based systems, as well as the roles and configurations of government and countries.
During the exercise, one group discussed the opportunities and responsibilities for future generations, individualised laboratory and access systems to resources, new avenues and new images, and working as entrepreneurs, peer to peer rather than at jobs in organisations. Scientists could grow beyond research, innova- tion and education to more public functions as diplomats and change agents. In summary, participants moved from exploring content in Phase 1 and external abstraction, to living the future in Phase 3: “How will this future affect me, what do I think about it, and what will I do now about it?”
Another group started the debate by identifying questions that apparently had no relevance before going through Phases 1 and 2. These were: (1) What and who is a scientist? (2) How is science performed? (3) How is science evaluated or how to ensure quality? and (4) How is science and its results communicated and to whom? The group then debated these questions and tried to find answers in the developed scenario. It is interesting that the third group was divided with half of the participants trying to look for answers anchored in the present and with what they felt comfortable.
Participants were asked to look back at the whole process (Phases 1 to 3) and to once again identify questions that might have been considered unimportant or incomprehensible at the beginning of the workshop, and that now they thought
would be relevant if they were asked to look at the future role of science in society today. New questions started emerging:
• How to democratise science?
• How to evolve from a diploma to a capability-based system?
• Will the educational system as we know it survive?
• How to include informal learning into the current or a new system?
• How will continuous education be provided and made available to all and at any age?
• Is there a need for choice between different or parallel evaluation systems?
• What will be the role and configuration of government and countries to ensure free access and use of information?
In another case, participants engaged in a discussion around the fundamentals of defining the scientific method and the profession of a scientist, and some assumptions from Phases 1 and 2 were also revisited. The subject of the inter- face between industry and science was also discussed energetically before the group could agree on a common vision of how the corporate world responds to global challenges and encourages/discourages innovation. Crowdsourcing and scientific-sourcing proved to be important axes of discussion about the changing conditions of scientific research and the redefinition of research vocation. Peer- review models were also challenged in the discussion. The group expressed a number of different perspectives without arriving at a consensus. Some thought that there would be different possibilities for transcending the current paradigm, while others were less sure. Everyone recognised that the shortcomings of current approaches would require significant shifts in the science/society relationship, at a minimum because of the unprecedented growth in numbers of the research com- munity. Unexpected outlier results were also presented, such as one participant representing a governmental institution suggesting they would design and experi- ment with implementing a participatory budgeting project for research financing, an initiative inspired by the workshop.
Another group chose to further explore the ways in which the society imagined in Phase 2 could be operationalised. They presented a short documentary as a pro- totype to show through images the evolution of life on earth: a self-organised world with no central power and with flexible organisation. Participants made explicit their assumptions: complete capillarity; complete personalisation; complete free- dom. The core ideas were: no nations; no boundaries; universal respect for human and non-human values; the whole-net, instead of the internet; and a flexible soci- ety. Instead of the philosophy of ‘use it and throw it away’ they proposed ‘pick and use it’: shared goods; shared transportation; shared housing, organised through sharing platforms. This is a society of freelancing where the most common job types they imagined would be platforms to share completeness. They realised the need to reframe human behaviour and change mindsets towards a society function- ing in networks. They also proposed reframing the nature and the role of science, including social sciences, into a knowledge and cultural creative activity.
The description of Phase 3, with outcomes of a different nature from the pre- vious two phases, highlights the new questions identified by participants after moving through the three phases. These may be relevant for anyone interested in better understanding possible roles of science in society as well as that of knowledge creation and exploitation. The new questions are organised around the role and identity of scientists, their way of working and their beliefs, the ways in which science is performed, evaluated and communicated, the ways in which science and continuous education can be democratised and evolve towards capacity-based systems, as well as the roles and configurations of government and countries.
On the facilitation process
Simultaneous processes were taking place during this particular FLL-N – the experiential and cognitive processes of learning, and ones associated with differ- ent levels of interaction of individuals. As a group, these processes followed the three phases in the universal group dynamics cycle with a start, middle and end, and its three stages – orientation, conflict and cohesion – with different relative weights in each phase. The learning curve sequence was intended to ease the engagement of the participants in the experiential and cognitive learning process (experience, reflection, conceptualisation, experimentation).
Every group was a system, where four interdependent levels of experience interacted: individual, interpersonal, subgroup and group. During the FLL, the facilitator respected the frontiers of these levels and avoided being invasive. The aim was to ease the process for participants with facilitators ‘lighting the phenom- ena’, rather than working with individuals or interpreting the contents directly.
Facilitators also had to be alert to the fact that change and resistance are not two conflicting aspects; instead, they are determined and necessary to each other.
All change involves a preservation strategy and respect for the resistance. Bearing this in mind reminded facilitators to be careful to not intervene directly in the group process, instead intervening closer to the borders when resistance arose.
Welcoming the resistance was essential to generate a confident environment, an essential step for participants engaging with the process of change.
The facilitator supports the process with the objective of maintaining interac- tion and co-participation in knowledge creation in accordance with the general design principles of FLL. The aim was to conduct small group exercises follow- ing a research protocol while ensuring that the group could perform the task. It was not the objective of the facilitators to intervene in content generation but to observe and take note of results.
Different approaches and tools were used during the process to move knowl- edge from tacit to explicit and for inventing new hypotheses, variables and models. One of the approaches used to deepen and broaden the content of the structured conversations working with assumptions in Phases 1 and 2 was the Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) method (Inayatullah, 2004) which is a power- ful tool for helping participants to make sense of their narratives by organising
and communicating attributes of the imaginary futures they described during the workshop. Other methods, such as role-playing, storytelling and using dif- ferent media for communicating results, were also used in both breakout groups and plenary sessions, allowing for experiments with different kinds of group dynamics and imaginative processes. Such diversity in the design of the knowl- edge laboratory processes was key to sparking creativity within the groups.
Beyond increasing creativity, this approach also made the workshop more pleasant and helped to energise the process. Ensuring that individuals can make personal contributions in an interactive, shared sense-making context is critical for tapping into the collective intelligence of the group and required a strong emphasis on customising the FLL-N design in advance and ensuring that dur- ing the process there was a capacity to engage in real-time facilitation of the group dynamics.
Follow-up
The experience of this FLL-N has enabled CGEE to adapt the process and dynam- ics to undertake several Labs. In 2014, the organisation rethought its strategy and market position with its collaborators through a process involving 12 short and lively encounters of around two hours each. This built directly on both the meth- odological insights and content generated by the Future of Science FLL-N.
In 2015, CGEE applied the FLL approach to a project looking at the future of sustainable cities commissioned by the Brazilian STI Ministry (MSTI). The FLL workshop brought together people with divergent points of view from research, industry and government, as well as students, religious groups, NGOs and people from different societal groups. In parallel, a discussion took place with children from 6 to 16 years during the Science and Technology Week that is organised every year by MSTI for all schools in cities across the country.
The results were combined, exposing the similarities and differences that these two groups (i.e. pupils and adults) expect for liveable and sustainable cities in Brazil. There was convergence in themes such as water, education, energy, mobility, green areas, food systems and health. However, in two themes – governance and security – expectations and proposed actions were quite diver- gent. Options for innovation policy were then developed for MSTI, to both provide a positive environment for discussion related to the converging themes and to offer a policy mix required to dig deeper into identified issues, thus gen- erating more understanding among stakeholders and coordinating actions with different Ministries. CGEE foresees using and adapting the FLL approach from 2017 onwards in several projects dealing both with sustainability and innovation in cities and regions.
Finally, it is important to highlight that going through several FL Labs has enabled CGEE to test the approach and unlock specific methods which are continually embedded in the ongoing development of foresight methods and applications at CGEE. It has also assisted the institution to disrupt an entrenched top-down approach to making internal decisions. By bringing all staff together,
mutual learning has become possible. The discovery of both similar and oppos- ing assumptions and expectations was a very powerful instrument to bring about an open in-house dialogue, which exposed personal biases and expanded the possibility of moving towards a jointly developed vision of what CGEE as an institution wants to be in the future. In a nutshell, it did put in motion a collective change regarding the ways in which the institution relates to its clients and carries out its projects and strategic studies.
As a result, it has been moving from a normative and prescriptive approach alone to one that aims to embrace complexity, emergence and novelty (Cagnin, 2017). This implies developing the ability to ‘walk on two legs’: improve or optimise the current system at the same time as it moves towards new and/or disruptive system configurations. Being able to operate both in known systems (inside-in, inside-out, and outside-in), with more efficiency and efficacy, as well as to operate in unknown systems (outside-out), will support the institution in crafting strategic questions for itself and its clients. In other words, looking outside systems that we are familiar with will support not only developing and addressing new strategic questions, but also in recognising new issues (e.g. chal- lenges, technologies, social transformations, among others) through systematic observations and dialogue, and selecting those which are worth investigating fur- ther in order to identify new opportunities.
References
Anon (2017a) ‘Constructivist Epistemology’, Wikipedia. Available at: https://en.
wiki pedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology (Accessed: 8 April 2017).
Anon (2017b) ‘Science’, Wikipedia. Available at: http://www.etymonline.com/index.
php?term=science&allowed_in_frame=0 (Accessed: 8 April 2017).
Cagnin, C. (2017) ‘Developing a Transformative Business Strategy through the Combination of Design Thinking and Futures Literacy’, Technology Analysis &
Strategic Management. Taylor&Francis Online. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.
com/doi/abs/10.1080/09537325.2017.1340638 (Accessed: 8 April 2017).
Da Costa, O., Warnke, P., Cagnin, C. and Scapolo, F. (2008) ‘The Impact of Foresight on Policy-Making: Insights from the FORLEARN Mutual Learning Process’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(3), pp. 369–387.
Cuhls, K. (2003) ‘From Forecasting to Foresight Processes? New Participative Foresight Activities in Germany’, Journal of Forecasting, 22(2–3), pp. 93–111. doi: 10.1002/
for.848.
Eriksson, E. A. and Weber, M. (2006) ‘Adaptive Foresight: Navigating the Complex Landscape of Policy Strategies’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(4), pp. 462–482.
Georghiou, L. (2001) ‘Third Generation Foresight - Integrating the Socio-Economic Dimension’, in International Conference on Technology Foresight - The Approach to and the Potential for New Technology Foresight. Tokyo: Science and Technology Foresight Center, National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP), Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.
Georghiou, L. (2007) ‘Future of Forecasting for Economic Development’, paper presented at UNIDO Technology Foresight Summit 2007, Budapest, 27–29 September.
Havas, A., Schartinger, D. and Weber, K. M. (2007) ‘Experiences and Practices of Technology Foresight in the European Region’, paper presented at UNIDO Technology Foresight Summit 2007, Budapest, 27–29 September.
Inayatullah, S. (2004) The Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) Reader. Taipei: Tamkang University Press.
Johnston, R. (2002) ‘The State and Contribution of International Foresight: New Challenges’, in The Role of Foresight in the Selection of Research Policy Priorities.
Seville: JRC-IPTS.
Johnston, R. (2007) ‘Future Critical and Key Industrial Technologies as Driving Forces for Economic Development and Competiveness’, paper presented at UNIDO Technology Foresight Summit 2007, Budapest, 27–29 September.
Understanding Science (2017) A Science Checklist. Berkeley, CA: University of California Museum of Paleontology. Available at: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/whatissci ence_03 (Accessed: 8 April 2017).
Case 3: Using the future for local labor markets Kacper Nosarzewski and Lydia Garrido Luzardo
The Futures Literacy Laboratory-Novelty (FLL-N) on Using the Future for Local Labor Markets was conducted on November 25–26, 2013, in Bogotá, Republic of Colombia, with a group of 28 participants from Regional Labor Observatories (Red de Observatorios Regionales de Mercado de Trabajo, RED ORMET), the Ministry of Labor, the National Apprenticeship Service (SENA), and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). The event was designed as a ‘knowledge laboratory,’ a learning-by-doing process that engages the collective intelligence of the participants to generate new knowledge. For reasons of effectiveness and efficiency in achieving the participants’ goals the future was used as the main reference point for structuring the conversations. When used in the context of a knowledge laboratory, the future is a particularly powerful tool for revealing underlying systemic assumptions and providing new analytical insights, often beyond existing frameworks.
Participants in this FLL-N were able to analyze and question the methods and goals that inform their current on-the-ground efforts to assist with allocation of investments, sharing of information and coordination of organizational activities in local labor markets. Participants also started to increase their own capacity to both use the future and conduct scientific research by gaining practical familiarity with the Discipline of Anticipation and FLL-N design and practice. Lastly, in the context of ongoing action research being conducted by UNESCO, this event con- tributed to the advancement of innovative approaches to both knowledge creation and the use of the future to formulate collective choices.
The design of the event, with a clear training objective and foresight theme, was prepared by an international group of Future Studies experts: Dr. Riel Miller, Head of Foresight at UNESCO, Paris; Mrs. Lydia Garrido Luzardo, Head of The Millennium Project Uruguayan Node, Montevideo; Mr. Kacper Nosarzewski, Partner at 4CF sp. z o. o., Warsaw, in close collaboration with Mr. Javier García
Estevéz of UNDP Colombia and with important inputs from the regional labor observatories and Ministry of Labor in Colombia. The event was hosted by the Ministry of Labor and UNDP at Grand House Hotel Bogotá.
The transformation of labor markets
A new series of emergent global political, economic and social phenomena are currently generating new categories of value-creation, altering the nature and organization of work, enlarging the role of learning, changing the meaning and practice of age-based landmarks like retirement, and diversifying the objectives of, and means for making investments. Part of this moving landscape involves changes in the conception and construction of collective efforts to understand and influence the world around us.
Today the field of labor policy is being transformed by changes taking place in the nature of work, the systems for organizing the allocation of time to value- creating activities, and the methods used to understand and share the meaning of changes in the distribution of human activity in daily life. Such innovations call for new research methods as well as a capacity to explore new avenues for expressing and organizing human agency. Disruptive changes, ones that signal the inadequacy of existing paradigms, also mark the emergence of new ones. This means that government policy and policy makers are faced with a dual challenge – improving the old and inventing the new.
With respect to labor market foresight that attempts to discern the future of employment and skills, the old can be understood as processes that extrapolate economic change with sufficient detail and sufficient accuracy to undertake sup- ply side planning and demand side adaptation. However, as decades of experience have demonstrated, medium and long-run labor market forecasting is not a par- ticularly useful way to think about the future of work. This is not only because of significant lags in training systems and technical difficulties in meeting rigorous data and modeling specifications, but is also and more importantly due to the fundamentally complex evolutionary nature of economic systems. Recognition of this reality partly accounted for the shift away from labor market planning to framework-type policies in the 1980s and 1990s for OECD countries. Currently the expansion or catch-up/convergence of industrializing countries and the cri- sis of de-industrialization of developed countries makes it tempting to return to old planning illusions – using forecasting approaches to think about the future nature and structure of human work activity, while at the same time suggesting that something more is needed.
Designing the experience
This two-day FLL-N was designed to assist participants with making sense of the changes taking place around them as well as helping them to see that they
can use the future in new ways. Through learning-by-doing knowledge creation, an action research approach to understanding local labor markets, participants recognized: (1) the developments taking place that influence the way the future is integrated into efforts to understand the world today, and (2) the emergence of new approaches to the mutual design and creation of knowledge and work.
Participants expanded the range of their analysis without abandoning important and still significant tools for thinking about the future and informing policies that can make existing systems work better.
Through the FLL-N participants enhanced their capacity to detect and make sense of repetition and difference, the old and the new, which are at the core of policy making. At the end of the process participants were better able to
‘walk on two legs,’ understanding the difference between closed and open sys- tems thinking, between efforts to improve or optimize already existing systems and efforts to perceive and invent new and/or disruptive system configurations.
This FLL-N focused the collective intelligence of participants and made their anticipatory assumptions explicit. They came to see how these assumptions play a key role in defining systemic boundaries, thereby shaping the ability to be able to distinguish between endogenous and exogenous continuity and change. By deepening and enlarging participants’ capacity to use the future and generate time-place specific knowledge, this FLL-N enabled policy makers to be innovative and context sensitive.
Participating in the FLL-N also provided an opportunity to learn about antici- patory systems and how to use the future, by considering an important topic – the future of local labor markets in Colombia. The FLL-N followed a learning curve sequence intended to engage the collective intelligence of participants. Through this conversational process information is revealed, new meanings and even phe- nomena discovered and shared sense-making emerges – which is not the same as consensus or agreement; indeed, there can be a clarification of disagreement. Of course, this search process is incomplete and biased in many ways, but since it is collective it is also more diverse, at a minimum in terms of different points of view due to age or gender or personal history, and it offers the potential of making explicit specific, time-place unique information that participants carry with them into the conversation. This is why the creation of knowledge through collective intelligence knowledge creation (CIKC) processes such as in the general FLL design is one of the main ways to research the anticipatory assumptions that we use to imagine the future.
The design of this specific FLL-N agenda involved both learning by doing and learning by viewing techniques, with intertwining lectures and workshop exercises in groups, and with emphasis on the practical dimension of foresight applied to labor market studies and labor policy. Exploring developments taking place in the Discipline of Anticipation and how such advances can be applied to labor market policy analysis and implementation was a key result of this Futures Literacy development process.
